JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J. : ---This is defendants ' Chamber Summons for an order dismissing the plaintiffs" suit under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The suit was filed on 18 the July, 1988. On 21st November, 1988 a write of summons of the suit was served upon the defendants. In order to prepare their written statement, the defendants sought inspection of certain documents from the plaintiffs. In that connection the defendants sent as many one of those five letters, except that on 11th October, 1989 the plaintiffs" advocate wrote to the defendants Advocate: "We may point out that there is a factual error in the calculation of selling price of paraffin wax as stated in paragraph 6 of the Plaint. We are taking out appropriate proceedings for the amendment of the same. Please note that inspection would be given as soon as the error is rectified. Ultimately the defendants were constrained to take out Chamber Summons No. 518 of 1990 for an order directing the plaintiffs to forthwith give inspection of the documents to the defendants. On 16th November, 1990 this Court passed the following order : "P.C. Chamber Summons absolute in terms of prayer (a). inspection to be furnished within two weeks. No order as to costs." Despite this, the plaintiffs did not bother to take any steps in the matter of complying with the said order dated 16th November, 1990. Thereafter the defendants" Advocate addressed as many as three letters to the plaintiffs" Advocate (Exhibits "H, I" and "J" to the Affidavit-in-support dated 12th April, 1991) dated 19th November, 1990, 6th December, 1990 and 12th January, 1991 calling upon the plaintiffs to give inspection of the documents as already ordered by the Court on 16th November, 1990. Again the plaintiffs did not bother about the matter at all and did not even give any reply to these three letters. Ultimately the defendants were constrained to take out the present Chamber Summons on 26th April, 1991 for the relief as stated above. 3. The plaintiffs have filed an Affidavit-in-reply only today. This Chamber Summons was served upon the plaintiffs on 17th May, 1991. Ultimately the defendants were constrained to take out the present Chamber Summons on 26th April, 1991 for the relief as stated above. 3. The plaintiffs have filed an Affidavit-in-reply only today. This Chamber Summons was served upon the plaintiffs on 17th May, 1991. In the Affidavit-in-reply it is stated that the order dated 16th November, 1990 could not be complied with "as the subject matter of the suit is pertaining to the year 1979 or thereabout and the officers who were looking after the matter are not in the employment of the plaintiffs. I say that inspite of deligent search, the plaintiffs could no trace the documents. I further say that papers and proceedings in Writ Petition No. 2410 of 1979 and of the Appeal No. 345 of 1985 filed by Calcutta Proofing Others were not found and ultimately M/s. Crawford Bayley Co., who were then acting for the Company were requested. As the matter of old, the said M/s. Crawford Bayley Co., Could not trace the said papers till recently". Thereafter in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit-n-reply it is stated that Xerox copies of certain documents were available and the same would be furnished to the defendants. In paragraph 4 of the Affidavit-in-reply it is stated that the correspondence of which inspection was sought by the parties, was between the parties and the copies of the same were with the defendants and further it is stated :" In any event, inspection of the same can be given as and when it is convenient to the defendants" Advocates. Till now inspection of the said correspondence was not given as the copies of the other documents were not available." In paragraph 5 of the Affidavit-in-reply, it is stated with regard to the Distributionship agreement dated 28th January, 1971 and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum that the plaintiffs would not rely on the said documents in any proceedings " till inspection thereof is furnished to the Defendants." 4. Clearly there has been non-compliance with the order dated 16th November, 1990. It is true that the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 are penal in nature. Ordinarily, instead of non-suiting the plaintiffs for not giving inspection of documents, other suitable orders to enforce the other parties" rights may be passed, but here is a gross case and it verges on contempt of Court. It is true that the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 are penal in nature. Ordinarily, instead of non-suiting the plaintiffs for not giving inspection of documents, other suitable orders to enforce the other parties" rights may be passed, but here is a gross case and it verges on contempt of Court. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the only proper order that should be passed on the present Chamber Summons is the order of dismissal of the plaintiffs" suit. 5. Hence, I pass the following orders : O R D E R The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Mr. Subramaniam prays for the stay of this order for 4 weeks. The above order is stayed for 4 weeks from today. Order accordingly. -----